Both Venkys and their consistent negligence and disinterest and Mowbray who hasnt the foggiest where his players see their future are beyond a joke, really.

Id like to think so, but then again id let the majority of those out of contract go but I dont think we will.

Im sure the ones like Johnson, Evans and Bennett will all get new deals however.

Really poor list when shown like that. Downing in 4th would deserve that place on his first year even though he has just Not sure how Jacob Davenport is above Richie Smallwood, he might well be a better player but the former has barely kicked a ball in 3 years and the latter was a big part in our promotion. Probably put Smallwood above the likes of Holtby, Rothwell and Johnson too, none of whom have done enough in a combined 7 years of service to suggest that if any of them went, they would be huge blows to us. Even Dolan in 5th was a signing that Mowbray didnt suggest, and even though he has massively exceeded expectations in terms of game time, he is still very raw and hasnt contributed that much of tangible and thus wouldnt be 5th out of 26 for most managers. Brereton has to be at the bottom all things considered really.

Its incredible how poor their group of players is, due to the boredom of an international break I do quite often catch the home nations games as they tend to be at different times to England and Ireland for quite a few years have been out on their own as being shockingly dull and you look at their players and there is no attacking talent young or old to suggest that this is likely to change under anyone. Scotland seem to have a bit of quality coming through across the side although are also lacking up front hence their desperate attempts to sign up Che Adams and Wales are established now although reliant on 2 players whose powers are beginning to wane.

Obviously not England but incredibly Republic of Ireland lost at home to Luxembourg today. Scotland and Wales both have something about them at the moment but Irelands squad is absolutely dire.

By that, I appreciate the reliance on data, im saying that I dont know and havent ascertained from the article whether the players they eventually sign are done so with or without being watched in full prior. If that is the case, the data would still be key in highlighting that player, where it becomes dangerous is if a signing is made solely on data without seeing the person in full. The difference between clubs and people doing it from home as a hobby is that the latter might then give opinions as fact on who they think we should sign in the absence of seeing that player play. Clubs will have the time and people to be able to scout the players that top the specific metrics that they are looking for, in your case, Barnsley want attackers that will get through a lot of physical mileage. Barnsleys specific use of and reliance upon data is miles away from my initial point regarding my own personal opinion on its limitations and how whilst individual aspects of it are obviously true, its only objective to a certain point. But anyway, as you say, no point arguing.

I did, but it doesnt specify from what I can see how much if any reliance is placed on watching the players that the data initially has flagged up, I found the following quote interesting and in regards to using data, which I have never totally dismissed, it seems a sensible mantra: "data is the first thing that wipes out the noise for us.” Like I said though, I was talking less about the usage within clubs and more on places like here purely as a discussion topic. I stand by the second quote you have quoted from me, and that has nothing to do with the article. I explained why in the rest of that second paragraph in my last post. If you was to marry my statement up with Barnsley and that article, even then, no club can guarantee perfect recruitment with or without data and there is an element of subjectivity in who they choose.

Obviously the specifics are objective but it depends on the interpretation. My points are more about discussions about players rather than speculating how clubs may use data anyway, we dont know for sure how reliant clubs are on data, whether its used to whittle down players to a shortlist that fit the parameters needed, for example Barnsley need strikers who can press so maybe they whittle down a shortlist based on strikers with particularly high distance covered per game, then watch those 3 or 4 strikers and pick from there. In which case, the data whilst not fool proof does massively help to make a decision that then comes down to opinion again. I dont think for example that anyone could say that one player is better than another based solely on data. Just take a singular stat, whether it is number of crosses, cross success rate, "progressive" runs, whatever, my point is that in isolation it doesnt prove anything. If you was to say that player x has a better cross percentage or puts in more crosses per game, that would be objectively true, but means little. If you was to say that player x is better than player y proved by his cross percentage and number of crosses, that would then be subjective, the stats would only support that opinion to an extent. An example is the ongoing debate as to who is a better right back, Rankin Costello or Nyambe. The former seems to come out on top on most "metrics" yet some aspects are more difficult to prove or indeed disprove via data. For example, I think Nyambe positionally and one on one defensively is far better at right back, and also I do feel to collaborate with the data that he is a much poorer crosser but he is a totally different player, he has the pace and power to get to the byline where it may require a simple pull back rather than an inch perfect cross, so whilst he is a poorer crosser in my opinion, I dont feel like he is less of an attacking threat. Data can also be used to window dress and supposedly prove an already held opinion, so thats when its objectiveness falls down too. I also have an issue with certain stats and how impossible they are to be totally reliable, xG being a perfect example.

It could I suppose if it was noticeably below average, but it could also mean for example that a a player is in a more advanced position and/or trying more high risk high reward passes, a few of which have led to goals. I bet Jason Lowe had a higher percentage pass rate than many, but he wasnt a good passer. Mathematical proof on its own, not quite so much. And @Hoochie Bloochie Mama again I would suggest that as I mentioned, that makes sense in that the data may help narrow down their shortlist to players who can fit their style of play. So it is a time efficient way of narrowing down shortlists of targets. I dont think that data is useless, far from it. But I also think that much of it is unavoidably flawed, has to be taken with a pinch of salt and only as a tool rather than instead of watching players, and I think there has been a sudden surge of people not involved with football clubs using it as factual proof when in fact due to its flaws it is not objective in proving opinions.

I dont think we should have signed 2 kids and indeed a more experienced player would have made more sense in January to fix a problem entirely avoidable much earlier, but surely Carter and Magloire benefit more from playing every week elsewhere rather than sticking around as an at that time unknown quantity of a back up?

Be interesting to see how Keane does at Celtic and a shame if he does go as he is a very entertaining pundit. He was not long out of the game at Sunderland, where he was overly reliant on players he knew, mainly from United but also from Ireland and Celtic. Take that comfort blanket out, throw in nearly 15 years of time in which players possibly will allow even less of an authoritarian approach, not sure it spells success.

Until that happens, its all opinions on conjecture, but my point is more that it would leave us short to only go into the season with Gallagher as a solitary striker. You cant put off recruiting in obvious areas simply because it isnt "financially sensible" and we cant have one striker all season. If Gallagher gets injured, we have no striker. My point was that it is inherently flawed though, I appreciate its intention but im saying that it is impossible to do to anything like pure authenticity what it is trying to do. For example, Gazza missed the ball by millimetres at Euro 96, that would go down as 0 xG when in fact it was as close as you could come. According to xG, a player missing the ball in front of an open goal, or say being really close and choosing the wrong option, is not a chance at all, whereas a long range pot shot would register, even obviously a very small xG. Even if you take into account all variables, it is still very difficult to make it objective too. I also do question what use it has, in that like I said, a game will pan out dependant on goals, so say when we played Stoke away, we would have been miles up on their xG. They scored early and sat deep, always had us at arms length, but if you looked at xG, I bet it looked like we was the far superior team. I read a recent article on Brighton and how they are doing so well in the xG league, but questioning what that actually means. Can they conclude that they should carry on and things will fall their way, or is it poor finishing that will remain? And if its over a long period of time, does it perhaps show an example of how results and xG have far from a 100% correlation? In reality, I personally think that it is easy without it to determine how you think it has played, based on the key chances which as mentioned may fall through the cracks of xG. A low xG doesnt prove poor performance, and the same for high xG. One thing I would say that data does however that is of benefit you touch upon at the end, it can be very time saving. You shouldnt make key decisions including transfer recruitment solely on data though, and it doesnt prove anything on its own, it can be used in tandem with opinions but it wouldnt make one superior or indeed factual.

How many of them are starts, if any? I am not saying that Chapman definitely should be here next season, although if he was under contract, there is no way that anyone would pay a million pounds for him anyway. But I dont understand why you are so dismissive of a player who has never started a Championship game that I can recollect, yet are championing similar players with similar goal tallies at the same level albeit across many more games this season, on the basis that they havent had a chance when Chapman equally has not. One thing that I am still unclear on too is whether you think it is necessary to sign a striker to replace Armstrong, as if you are saying that we do need a new striker but also a couple of wide men/attacking midfielders because replacing Armstrongs goals with 1 player may be nigh on impossible, I would tend to agree, if it is just to sign wide men/attacking midfielders and not bring in a striker, then it is not something I understand. I do get your point on partnerships although for me they were never really a pairing that benefitted from one another, they didnt link up etc, it was more that we had 2 excellent strikers at that time. I am not sure that we should sign more Crewe players based on how they link up within Crewe's specific set up, what if Pickering gets injured or fails to perform? I am sceptical because many of the stats are meaningless, especially out of context, at best they may display tendencies of a players style which you would know anyway. Many are flawed, for example a dribble is very difficult to tangibly ascertain, and also it means that taking on 4 men and passing, or turning around near 1 man and passing, both are equally going to count as a successful dribble. Stats like xG, so many issues, how do you objectify a chance, if a player misses a tap in by a cm, it doesnt count towards, if a team scores an early goal, the other team will then likely and naturally have a higher xG due to chasing a goal for so long, does that prove anything, etc. For defenders in particular, how do you decifer what stats are relevant, if a defender makes more interceptions/tackles, is he better, or is he out of position more often. You have to factor in how teams play, how good a team is, so many limitations that I can see. Data usage will have a use but surely that would be to narrow down the search for a player, if we are signing players solely off data or selected clips then that is a massive worry. We need to be watching numerous full games, even if that is only allowed via TV due to the circumstances, not ideal I concede, before deciding whether to sign a player. Data has a use but it has to be taken with a huge dollop of salt. I think the problem is when people go down a road whereby they feel the data is objective and proves a point, which it doesnt. Data can be manipulated to prove anything, and due to the limitations and varying relevance of data, it proves nothing more than a persons opinion IMO.

Again, sceptical of the use of such a statistic. If a player takes on 2 players, gets to a third and loses it, does that come out as 66.67% successful, or 0%? How can you possibly define whether something is a dribble, does the close proximity of an opponent come into it? Impossible to objectify.

It just seems a bit of a swing from you thinking he is likely to go in this international break! It seems more likely based on past events that if Armstrong goes, it will be some bollocks next season like Buckley as a false 9 with Brereton and Gallagher either side.

So Mowbray is staying now? I agree but that removes any slither of excitement that could be mustered up. If our 2 strikers were Gallagher and Brereton, you would still deem that to be well down the lists of priorities? Absolutely crazy. If Armstrong goes then we need a new striker to come in. Gallagher may well be serviceable as 2nd or 3rd choice, Brereton is not a centre forward though. Them 2 as the grand total of our striking talent would leave us in the mire. I get that 12m has been spent but thats a sunk cost now and we cant rely on them in spite of evidence purely to desprately attempt to justify it.

Possibly not although he has scored 20 in a season before. But again, you can apply that logic to anyone. Could Kaminski be a prolific goalscorer? I have seen Gallagher plenty in a central position to have seen that he is not a natural goalscorer and he does not anticipate chances very well.

Definitely agree, they have limited use. I think that Nyambe is a better defender one on one, how do you statistically prove or disprove that though? Rankin Costello is definitely a better crosser as Nyambes crossing is poor but there are more ways to skin a cat and he has learnt how to get past full backs and his assists which in the past were absent tend to be pull backs rather than crosses. Mind you with the weird tactics that Mowbray plays, is crossing even a useful skill to have? I dont think either are amongst the top right backs in the league but Nyambe is definitely ahead of me, Rankin Costello has a lot of good points to his game but I think I would like to see him further forward.

From where?

You cant just use random examples as proof that he can score x amount. Its like me saying that if we had allowed Friedel to come up for corners, he could have scored more like he did at Charlton away. Obviously his usage this season (previously defended by yourself) has been bizarre but even before I didnt rate him as a striker. Not a natural goalscorer for a start.

Not sure I would describe Maguire as solid. Indeed it is not a selection of players of the quality in line with other countries or indeed other positions where we are stronger. I think Gomez is out of the Euros too.

We are not particularly strong at centre back, all of our options bar maybe Stones (who himself has only just come back into the picture) and also in central midfield. Pope is a good keeper but Pickford will play and is a liability. Shaw is playing really well for United at left back and we have untold wealth in attacking midfield and at right back although especially concerning the latter I am not convinced that Southgate will select the best one. At the moment, I would personally definitely have Pope, Alexander Arnold, Stones, Shaw, Jordan Henderson, Foden and Kane starting, as well as probably Sterling. The rest up for grabs. Not that todays match proves that or indeed anything. Waste of time really, should have pre qualifiers. Impossible to gain anything from today, just needless extra football.

Impossible to judge. England could beat these if they could only select League 2 and under.

The underlying problem is going into a season with Lenihan, who is injury prone but we have been lucky with, Williams who has never been reliable nor particularly good and had attracted interest in the summer, Wharton and of course the massively injury prone Ayala. Carter and Magloire playing at a lower level elsewhere is not the issue.